That said I interprit that as one free AntiVirus software cannot protect you from all the malware out there. Take a look at avg AntiVirus or Avart!. Those products do not have firewalls or any vulnerability protection like the paid Norton Internet Security. Also, it does not have a website filter to block you from visiting malware site. For that, you probably have to install a seperate software like Norton Safe Web and/or Wot. In summary, with just one installation of a paid security suite, you would have install, update, and scan at least two or more free versions ie Avg with ZoneAlarm firewall and spybot search and destroy.
No, it’s part of cleaning, added features. It adds value to the product.
But it’s NOT protection at all… It does not make Symantec sentence a valid and true one.
Jesus! How is removing the malware not part of the prevention. If the malware is removed from the infected drive, it cannot harm your computer or spread further.
http://www.microsoft.com/security/filters/smartscreen.aspx
http://www.realtime-websecurity.com/articles_and_analysis/2007/06/firefox_and_google_team_to_blo.html
http://www.privacyware.com/personal_firewall.html
http://www.sandboxie.com/
This Combo. This Free. This Secure Enough.
… it already did…
Yeah but you would have install many free software to do the job of one paid security suite
Or only CIS 
And what is the problem to use more than one free product to do the job.
Specialized tools could achieve a very good level of quality. Running together, achieve better protection than paid ones.
They are lightweight. They do the job. They are easy to manage. They do not autodelete some programs and give you the choice of decision. They are free and do not auto-charge your credit card. They are equally effective as a paid security suite.
It’s part of the cure, not the prevention.
+1
There is a great distance between “cure” and “prevention”. Cure literally means to remove the malware from an infected system. Prevention literally means to keep malware from infecting a system. There is no if’s, and’s or but’s about it. Those are the definitions. If a system has malware on it already, then you cure it. If doesn’t have malware on it, then you prevent further malware from getting on it. If malware infects a clean system, then the “prevention” failed and the computer must then be “cured”. Why is there such a dispute over the meanings? Curing is not preventing and preventing is not curing.
Very valid point Naren, thank you for pointing it out…
If the infected PC has no Internet connection because malware killed it or redirects it… then NIS might have an issue as per Languy’s review…
Melih
+1
How has this gone on for so long.
As far as installing products on an already infected PC I would never suggest using only one program to clean it. You can never trust just one program. Scan with whichever AV you are using, Malwarebytes, Emsisoft Anti-Malware, SuperAntiSpyware, etc… Even then you can never be sure that you are clean. Protection is not the same as cleaning. These are two very different things.
It’s much better to prevent the infection in the first place. CIS was specifically built for this, which may make it a little difficult for some people. Norton was built with, to tell the truth, excellent detection capabilities that will protect people very well, and with very little user interaction, unless they have very bad luck, or apparently no internet access. Both programs are very good in their own ways and I think that’s the point Melih is trying to make. CIS is not worse than Norton, hence the problem with this quotes such as this.
“The reality is, free is not enough. It’s like wearing a light windbreaker in a snowstorm.”Free products can work just as well as paid ones, usually if you use more than one together, in many circumstances for many people. What Symantec said is true for some people but by no means for all. Free can definitely be enough.
rightly said no one will just try to free the pc from infections on the infected system with just 1 AM. Any one will try 3-4 AM & other utilities like system cleaner & all to make sure the system is cleaned as good as possible.
No single AM can clean infected system. It needs few AM & other utilities.
After through cleaning…CIS all the way…
Thanxx
Naren
Even LanGuy got mentioned in that article… I cant wait to see their tests when they are finished with them. ;D
I just wonder what type of tests they do. If it’s detection then Norton wins. If it’s prevention, correctly done, then either CIS wins or it’s a tie. Of course another question is whether they’ll factor in usability.
If done correctly it could give the end users a very good idea about what each product is good at and where its failings are.
Even though its from Matousec I like this.
Date Milestone Comodo Internet Security Norton Internet Security
2009-09-09 – 3.11.108364.552 – 97% 2009 16.2.0.7 – 66%
2009-10-10 – 3.12.111745.560 – 100% 2009 16.2.0.7 – 66%
2009-10-29 – 3.12.111745.560 – 100% 2010 17.0.0.136 – 67%
2010-01-04 M6 3.12.111745.560 – 100% 2010 17.0.0.136 – 67%
2010-02-21 – 3.12.111745.560 – 100% 2010 17.5.0.127 – 40%
2010-05-01 – 4.0.141842.828 – 100% 2010 17.5.0.127 – 40%
2010-09-23 – 4.0.141842.828 – 100% 2010 17.5.0.127 – 40%
Big question is if its done right…